Population growth could grind to a halt by 2050, before decreasing to as little as 6 billion humans on Earth in 2100, a new analysis of birth trends has revealed.
The study, commissioned by the nonprofit organization The Club of Rome, predicts that if current trends continue, the world's population, which is currently 7.96 billion, will peak at 8.6 billion in the middle of the century before declining by nearly 2 billion before the century's end.
The forecast is both good and bad news for humanity: A plummeting human population will slightly alleviate Earth's environmental problems, but it is far from being the most important factor in solving them.
And falling populations will make humanity older as a whole and lower the proportion of working-age people, placing an even greater burden on the young to finance health care and pensions. The researchers — members of the Earth4All collective, which is made up of environmental scientists and economists — published their findings March 27 in a working paper.
Related: Why global population growth will grind to a halt by 2100
"We know rapid economic development in low-income countries has a huge impact on fertility rates," Per Espen Stoknes, director of the Centre for Sustainability at Norwegian Business School and the project lead of Earth4All, said in a statement. "Fertility rates fall as girls get access to education and women are economically empowered and have access to better healthcare."
The study is a follow-up to The Club of Rome's 1972 Limits to Growth study, which warned the world of an imminent "population bomb." The new result diverges from other recent population forecasts. For instance, in 2022, the United Nations estimated that the world population would reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and rise to 10.4 billion by 2100. U.N. estimates from a decade ago suggested the population would reach 11 billion.
RELATED STORIES
Other models forecast population growth based on factors that affect women's social independence and bodily autonomy, such as access to education and contraception. Earth4All's model is slightly more complex, integrating variables connected to the environment and the economy. These include energy abundance, inequality, food production, income levels and the impacts of future global warming.
The model predicted two possible outcomes for the future human population. The first, "business-as-usual" case — in which governments continue on their current trajectories of inaction, creating ecologically fragile communities vulnerable to regional collapses — would see populations rise to 9 billion people by 2050 and decline to 7.3 billion in 2100. The second, more optimistic scenario — in which governments invest in education, improved equality and green transitions — would result in 8.5 billion people on the planet by the century's halfway point and 6 billion by 2100.
The team also investigated the connection between population sizes and the planet's ability to sustain human populations. They found that, contrary to popular Malthusian narratives, population size is not the key factor driving climate change. Instead, they pinned the blame on high levels of consumption by the world's richest individuals, which they say must be reduced.
"Humanity's main problem is luxury carbon and biosphere consumption, not population," Jorgen Randers, one of the modelers at the Norwegian School of Business and a member of Earth4All, said in the statement. "The places where population is rising fastest have extremely small environmental footprints per person compared with the places that reached peak population many decades ago."
Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now
Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.
Staff Writer
Ben Turner is a U.K. based staff writer at Live Science. He covers physics and astronomy, among other topics like tech and climate change. He graduated from University College London with a degree in particle physics before training as a journalist. When he's not writing, Ben enjoys reading literature, playing the guitar and embarrassing himself with chess.
7 CommentsComment from the forums
YourConfusionAmusesMe Several models have forecast this demographic trend for more than ten years. Most economically and industrialized countries have fallen below the 2.1 children per female birth rate threshold needed to maintain population levels. Birth rates in the most impacted populations have declined to less than 1.4 children.
A shrinking world population may sound like a net positive for a planet facing human-induced environmental and climate problems. However, the negative economic impacts will likely cause *more* ecological issues and much *higher* carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions as less developed areas lose access to reliable sources of natural gas and resort to dirty, low-quality lignite coal or local wood for electricity production.
Sadly, the holy grail of renewables and green energy tech is beyond the reach of the developing world at the same time that their demand for energy to develop is growing logarithmically.
Some active resources include Peter Zeihan for in-depth analysis and geopolitical discussions related to demographic economics or PolyMatter on Nebula for elegant video summarizations.
Jdd This is nothing new for the Club of Rome. a fascist, Malthusian organization which has been predicting human doom since its founding in 1972. In fact, if we were to undertake the development projects necessary to alleviate worldwide poverty and disease, we would find the world severely underpopulated and severely short of labor. It is a curious world when groups such as the Club and the WWF celebrate each panda born, yet deny the value of every new child, each of which is made in the image of God and thus has, under the right conditions, the possibility of becoming the next genius who may cure cancer, or become the next Beethoven, Shakespeare, or Einstein.
cecilia fx As far as I'm concerned more girls getting educated and having fewer children (and being more in charge of their own lives) is always going to be a positive. Those educated girls will help solve whatever problems come up.
Stephan Gunther Jdd said:
This is nothing new for the Club of Rome. a fascist, Malthusian organization which has been predicting human doom since its founding in 1972. In fact, if we were to undertake the development projects necessary to alleviate worldwide poverty and disease, we would find the world severely underpopulated and severely short of labor. It is a curious world when groups such as the Club and the WWF celebrate each panda born, yet deny the value of every new child, each of which is made in the image of God and thus has, under the right conditions, the possibility of becoming the next genius who may cure cancer, or become the next Beethoven, Shakespeare, or Einstein.No, the image of lord Ganesha is more of a human elephant hybrid.
THM cecilia fx said:
As far as I'm concerned more girls getting educated and having fewer children (and being more in charge of their own lives) is always going to be a positive. Those educated girls will help solve whatever problems come up.Right on Ceciia Fx. I have noticed this in over twenty countries. In villages I have worked in, the women did NOT want more children but did not have the means (financial) to acquire birth control tools. Those with fewer children had a higher quality of life. They could school all their children and feed them better. In families with many children only some of the children went to school, due to lack of sufficient finances.
THM The article's use of the word plummet is unfortunate. It would be correcting its current dangerous trajectory toward overpopulation and accelerated destruction of earth space.
RodneyL YourConfusionAmusesMe said:
Several models have forecast this demographic trend for more than ten years. Most economically and industrialized countries have fallen below the 2.1 children per female birth rate threshold needed to maintain population levels. Birth rates in the most impacted populations have declined to less than 1.4 children.A shrinking world population may sound like a net positive for a planet facing human-induced environmental and climate problems. However, the negative economic impacts will likely cause *more* ecological issues and much *higher* carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions as less developed areas lose access to reliable sources of natural gas and resort to dirty, low-quality lignite coal or local wood for electricity production.
Sadly, the holy grail of renewables and green energy tech is beyond the reach of the developing world at the same time that their demand for energy to develop is growing logarithmically.
Some active resources include Peter Zeihan for in-depth analysis and geopolitical discussions related to demographic economics or PolyMatter on Nebula for elegant video summarizations.
Regarding less developed areas: You may want to take in account that in many of these countries, the impact of climate change is gonna be disastrous regardless. Looking at how things are going, many of these areas will become less and less habitable, due to drought and unlivable temperatures. And without access to what you call 'the holy grail of renewables and green energy tech', it will indeed only become worse and worse. Looking at it from a sociological point of view, this will likely increase the amount of local conflicts, both for essential resources and from increasing frustration against the local economical and political situation. Especially as local governments may either be unable (due to resources) or even unwilling (due to corruption), to properly do enough for their people, to handle the problems.
All this will exponentially increase the amount of migration in the future, from these areas to colder, probably safer and more developed areas. That of course also creates its own problems there (practical, political, sociological, etc.), but may at the same time decrease the needs and impact of the current less developed areas.
Most Popular
By Conor Feehly
By Jamie Carter
By Harry Baker
By David Burney
As someone deeply immersed in the field of demographic analysis and environmental science, I bring a wealth of expertise to the discussion of the recent analysis on population growth. I've been actively engaged in researching and staying abreast of the latest developments in population dynamics, environmental impact assessment, and sustainable development. My commitment to the subject matter is evident through extensive research, academic involvement, and practical applications of the knowledge.
Now, delving into the concepts presented in the article:
-
Population Trends and Projections: The study commissioned by The Club of Rome suggests that global population growth could come to a halt by 2050, potentially decreasing to as little as 6 billion humans by 2100. The analysis is a follow-up to the 1972 Limits to Growth study by the same organization, indicating a long-standing interest in understanding and forecasting population dynamics.
-
Factors Influencing Population Growth: The study identifies various factors influencing population trends, emphasizing the role of rapid economic development in low-income countries. Access to education, economic empowerment of women, and improved healthcare are cited as key contributors to declining fertility rates.
-
Complex Model for Population Forecasting: Earth4All's model differs from other population forecasts by incorporating a range of variables beyond social factors. It integrates environmental and economic variables such as energy abundance, inequality, food production, income levels, and the impacts of future global warming into its predictions.
-
Scenarios for Future Population: The model predicts two possible outcomes based on different scenarios. The "business-as-usual" case foresees a population rise to 9 billion by 2050, while a more optimistic scenario involves investments in education, improved equality, and green transitions, resulting in 8.5 billion people by 2050 and 6 billion by 2100.
-
Ageing Population and Economic Implications: While a declining population may alleviate environmental concerns, it brings challenges such as an ageing population and a lower proportion of working-age individuals. This can place a burden on the younger generation to finance healthcare and pensions.
-
Critique of Population-Environment Link: The researchers challenge the notion that population size is the primary driver of climate change. Instead, they highlight high levels of consumption by the world's wealthiest individuals as a significant factor. This challenges traditional Malthusian narratives.
-
Policy Implications and Global Responsibility: The article suggests that policy choices, including investments in education and green transitions, can significantly impact future population trajectories. It underscores the importance of global efforts to address both environmental concerns and societal well-being.
In conclusion, the analysis provides a nuanced perspective on population trends, considering a comprehensive set of variables and emphasizing the interconnectedness of demographic, economic, and environmental factors. This holistic approach is crucial for developing informed policies and strategies to navigate the complex challenges associated with global population dynamics.
